See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349140165

Green supply chain management in construction: A systematic review

Conference Paper · December 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 201

2 authors:

Niamh Murtagh Sulafa Badi

University College London British University in Dubai
60 PUBLICATIONS   1,409 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   538 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

‘Towards Transformative Practice Frameworks: Planners, Professional Agency & Sustainable Urbanism’ View project

Sustainable energy innovation (SEI) within private finance initiative (PFI) projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sulafa Badi on 09 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT IN
CONSTRUCTION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

The construction sector is particularly destructive of the natural world, in terms of

resource and energy consumption and generation of waste. The industry itself, and
construction research, are increasingly focusing on ways in which the construction
process can become more environmentally sustainable. The concept of green supply
chain management in construction (GSCMC) addresses the issue, following advances
in green supply chain management in other sectors. However, a systematic review of
scholarly work on GSCMC is unavailable and this paper aims to address the gap by
providing a timely and thorough review of existing research. Applying the established
method of Systematic Literature Review, an initial search yielded 207 papers, with a
final set of 44 relevant peer-reviewed papers analysed in detail after systematic and
transparent refinement. The field shows an increase in interest from 2012 and a more
dramatic upturn in 2016 and 2017. Little attention has been paid to conceptual
definitions or theoretical frameworks. The papers acknowledged different
stakeholders but few considered how GSCMC may vary by role. An agenda for future
research is proposed, including the need for end-to-end as well as detailed, subdomain
studies, for different stakeholder perspectives and for addressing the challenges
specific to fragmentation and potentially adversarial relationships in the industry.

Keywords: construction, green supply chain management, systematic literature

review.

INTRODUCTION
As a sector, construction extracts a heavy toll from the natural environment. The
industry consumes enormous quantities of raw materials, produces prodigious
amounts of waste and is responsible for a major proportion of global carbon
emissions. Environmental sustainability in construction is a pressing concern for the
industry and society globally (Kibert, et al., 2000). In response, sustainable or green
supply chain management (GSCM) has much to offer. Complementing the burgeoning
literature on GSCM in different sectors, practitioner and research interest in GSCM in
construction is developing. However, the challenges for the construction sector are in
some ways different from other industries and a systematic review of the application
of GSCM in our sector is unavailable. The study presented here aims to address this
gap by providing a timely review of existing research on GSCM in construction
(GCSMC1). It contributes to the literature in its synthesis of work to date and proposed
agenda for future research.

1 In the discussion below, GSCMC refers specifically to green supply chain management in construction, whereas GSCM is used
to refer to green supply chain management more generally.
The paper is based on a systematic review of the literature. The context for the review
is first outlined by summarising the evidence for the environmental impact of
construction and governmental and industry concerns. The method of systematic
literature review (SLR) is then explained. A descriptive analysis of the literature is
presented followed by a synthesis, both selective due to space constraints. Finally, an
agenda for future research is proposed. The aim is to provide researchers with a
consolidation of work done, and pointers to current weaknesses and gaps, that is, to
describe the status of the field and to indicate areas not yet addressed.
The fifth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports the
built environment as a major determinant of energy demand (Lucon et al., 2014). The
sector is recognised as heavily dependent on extraction of raw materials (European
Commission, 2008). Construction and demolition waste constitutes one of the highest
volume waste streams in the EU, generating between a quarter and a third of all EU
waste (EU, 2015). Its high consumption of resources and energy, in delivery of the
built environment and in operation of buildings and infrastructure thereafter, and its
generation of heavy, voluminous and mixed waste contribute to the construction
sector’s particularly negative environmental impact. This impact is exacerbated by the
long term nature of the final product: today’s buildings and infrastructure ‘lock in’
energy consumption over the next decades (Lucon et al., 2014) and represent a
potential legacy of future waste. National and regional governments worldwide have
recognised the challenges and are reacting with tighter legislation (cf EU waste
reduction) and initiatives to lead by example. The industry too has begun to address
the challenges, with over 70 national Green Building Councils working to offer
leadership and co-ordination. Environmental performance assessments such as
BREEAM and LEED are increasingly applied to new developments and innovation on
materials continues. However, the character of construction as a fragmented industry
remains an issue, and the need for systemic approaches and collaboration within and
across sectors in the construction supply chain has been proposed as crucial for more
rapid progress. The domain of green supply chain management (GSCM) offers such a
systemic and collaborative approach. GCSMC then is critical to facilitating more
sustainable construction and reducing the sector’s negative impact on the natural
world of today and tomorrow.
Before describing the method for the research, it is important to clarify the primary
term and distinguish it from concepts with which it is sometimes confounded. At this
point, the definition is necessarily high-level - in the discussion below, we consider
the definitions in the literature, offer a more rigorous formulation and discuss the
challenges of definition. GSCMC is initially defined as activities aimed at reducing
the environmental impact of the supply chain for the built environment. It is
differentiated from sustainable supply chain management, a broader concept which
incorporates economic and social sustainability as well as environmental (Ahi and
Searcy, 2013). The aims of GSCMC also differ from those of lean supply chain
management (SCM): lean principles address the identification and managing out of
waste with the objectives of increasing efficiency, lowering cost and providing
improved value to the customer (Banawi and Bilec, 2014). The objectives of GCSMC
centre on environmental performance.
METHOD
A systematic review of a research literature is a critical appraisal of previous studies
conducted using a methodical and transparent process. Originating in the field of
health as a method offering a rigorous approach to the synthesis of empirical data,
SLR is increasingly widely applied in a broad range of domains where a thorough and
comprehensive review can contribute to knowledge (Briner and Denyer, 2012). The
systematic review differs from a non-systematic or expert review in its explicit
recording of all decisions pertinent to the review. Beginning by mapping the territory
in an explicit manner, the systematic review then attempts critically to examine the
included studies and synthesise the findings into a coherent account of the field. The
current paper is aimed at consolidating existing knowledge for the research
community. The method can also be used to distil empirical evidence for practitioners,
and the practical insights from the GSCMC literature are discussed elsewhere in a
longer version of this paper (in preparation).
Following the stages set out in Gough et al., (2012), Table 1 summarises the protocol
for the current review. The objective of the review was to evaluate the status of the
field and to identify directions for future research.
In order to ensure high quality, only papers from peer-reviewed journals were
selected. In determining whether a paper addressed GSCMC, decisions on inclusion
were challenging given the fuzzy boundaries of the topic. The guiding rule applied
was that, for inclusion, the research or discussion had to cross stakeholder boundaries
or consider the perspectives of different supply chain actors. The default decision was
inclusion if the paper was found from the search terms specified, as the original
authors deemed their work as relevant to GSCMC through their choice of keywords or
phraseology. Papers that addressed any aspect of construction were included, whether
focused on a specific sub-sector such as road maintenance or construction more
generally.
Table 1: Systematic review protocol based on Gough et al. (2012)
Stage Description Detail
1 Define the research questions What is the status of research on GSCMC?
What are the key insights?
2 Define the exclusion/eligibility Paper in English in peer-reviewed journal.
criteria
Published before 31st August 2017.
Paper topic is green supply chain management
Paper focus is the construction sector
3 Define search terms and sources Search terms: supply chain AND (green OR
sustainable) AND construction IN subject
Sources: a proprietary metadata integrator (Primo
Central Index supplied by Ex Libris) which receives
data from over 500 sources, including Scopus and
Web of Science
4 Search, screen and compile set of 207 papers found; 163 excluded, of which 14
included studies duplicates; 44 papers in final set
5 Analysis: code and critically Thematic analysis: deductive based on coding
evaluate included studies structure; then inductive critical evaluation
6 Formulate synthesis Thematic synthesis: deductive based on analysis by
codes; inductive critical evaluation
To ensure rigour, both authors independently conducted the search and assessed the
papers for inclusion in two stages: (a) reviewing title, keywords and abstract; (b) skim
reading of the paper. At each stage, any discrepancies were discussed and if not
resolved, the paper was included in the next stage.
The a priori coding structure comprised: focus (specific subdomain or industry
generic), aim, method and findings. Emergent themes were added as analysis
progressed and comprised: stage (planning, design, procurement, etc.), definition of
GSCMC, use of theory and stakeholders. Analysis proceeded by coding theme: a brief
summary was produced for each theme. The summaries were then integrated into an
initial synthesis which drew out the main themes, gaps and areas for future research.
This overview was then checked back to the papers in a second, detailed review. The
thematic summaries were extended, the overview findings were refined and the future
agenda was expanded into greater depth to provide the final synthesis. A limited set of
themes from analysis and from the synthesis are presented below due to restrictions on
space.
ANALYSIS
Research interest over time
No qualifying papers were found from before the year 2000. A small proportion
(16%) were published up to and including 2011 and the field shows an increase in
interest from 2012 and a more dramatic upturn in 2016 and 2017 (see Fig. 1). With
growth in interest in GSCM in general being mapped to the early 1990s (Zhu and
Sarkis, 2006), it would appear that construction and allied research fields have been
slow to adopt the concept but that research interest in application of the concept is
now firmly underway.
Fig 1 Number of papers by year of publication

Note: papers published up to 31.08.2017 were reviewed so the 2017 total is partial.
Source journals
The 44 papers appeared in a surprisingly large variety of journals, 31 in total, with
only three publications including multiple papers on the topic: Journal of Cleaner
Production published 10 of the papers; Sustainability (Switzerland) published three,
and Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, and WIT Transactions on
Ecology and Environment, each published two. With papers published in disciplinary
outlets ranging from Waste Management to Resource Policy to Building Research and
Information, there is evidence of wide interest in GSCMC and related topics, with
recognition of its importance across many disciplines. The range of publication outlets
also speaks to the multi-faceted nature of the construct.
Methods
A variety of methods has been used to examine different facets of GCSMC (see Table
2). Fifteen papers applied specialised quantitative methods, including material flow
analysis, modelling, lifecycle analysis (LCA) and organisational environmental
footprint, to examine particular questions within the GSCMC process. The remainder
of the studies used a range of methods: interviews only (5), survey only (6), mixed
methods of interviews and surveys (5) and case studies (6). In most cases, the number
of cases was appropriate for detailed analysis, with up to 31 individual professionals
being interviewed, and usable responses on surveys ranging between 39 and 455. The
literature therefore is generally founded on a solid empirical base. The exceptions
were studies with low numbers of interviewees (2), and one paper in which data
sources were not quantified making it difficult to assess robustness.

Table 2 Methods used in reviewed papers

Method Number of Further information
papers
Interviews 5 n = 4 to 31
Surveys 6 n = 39 to 455
Mixed 5 Interviews n = 6 to 29; surveys n = 27 to 84
Case study 6 Cases included reuse process; project supply chain
Action research 1
Lifecycle analysis 7 Lifecycle analysis and associated methods
Other modelling 8 Including decision models for subcontractor selection
Commentary or 6
literature review

Stakeholders
The range of stakeholders referred to in the papers surveyed illustrated the complexity
of the construction supply chain. Beyond the suppliers and logistics operators who
would be expected to feature in SCM more generally, reference was made to
developers and clients (10 papers), construction professionals including
architect/designers, engineers, project managers and specialist subcontractors (15),
and principal contractors (4). Opinions varied on the level of commitment and
motivation of different stakeholder roles. While most authors who commented on
stakeholder responsibility considered the client/developer as an important driver, not
all considered the general contractor to be motivated to green the supply chain (Wong
et al., 2016). Some scholars viewed designers as having limited incentive to
collaborate in green supply chains (Wong et al., 2016, Balasubramanian and Shukla,
2017b) but others argued that the design team has a major influence on the final
product through design and materials selection (Albino and Berardi, 2012, Arroyo et
al., 2016, Sertyesilisik, 2016).
The absence of discussion of stakeholders in almost one third of the papers, however,
represents a weakness in the literature reviewed, through omission of one of the
primary foci of GSCM (Ahi and Searcy, 2013). Further, as Balasubramanian and
Shukla (2017b, 2017a) argued, stakeholder perspectives differ and therefore the
different standpoints, approaches and objectives of each stakeholder should be
examined.
Definitions of GSCMC
Not all authors sought to define GSCMC. Many of the papers with a complementary
focus to GCSMC defined ancillary concepts such as lean or sustainable construction,
sustainable materials management, waste management and reverse logistics. Where
authors provided definitions of GSCMC, most were operationally focused, specifying
the constituent processes. Green procurement featured extensively, along with green
manufacturing, green distribution, green purchasing, green production, green
consumption, green transportation, green design, packaging and waste minimisation.
These processes themselves were rarely defined. The objectives of GSCMC were
considered in some papers, and these were proposed to be: to enhance
competitiveness, to add value for stakeholders, to improve environmental, economic
and operational performance, to improve service, increase market share and
sustainability of supply, to increase operational efficiency, cut costs and minimise
risks or for ethical reasons, and to reduce environmental impact. Surprisingly few
authors attempted to consider a more conceptual perspective although in a small
number of papers, there was recognition of the holistic, end-to-end perspective. These
papers emphasised integration of processes between suppliers and clients and
integration of green practices into business processes and into inter-organisational
SCM. The findings here echo those of Ahi and Searcy’s (2013) systematic review of
GSCM definitions, in which they found limited consideration of principles of business
sustainability such as a stakeholder focus and long-term perspective.
Theory
Given that GSCMC is a form of SCM (Ahi & Searcy, 2013), an a priori assumption
that the research papers would draw extensively on SCM work to inform their studies
theoretically was not borne out. Use of the SCM literature was generally limited
although a few papers harnessed previous insights from SCM, including an end-to-end
perspective and the importance of trust to facilitate inter-firm integration, issues of
supply chain integration and the importance of co-makership in innovation. The
absence of theoretical frameworks for GSCMC was a noticeable weakness in the
literature surveyed, with a few exceptions. Balasubramanian and colleagues offered
the only new theoretical framework proposed for GSCMC in the papers reviewed
(Balasubramanian, 2014, Balasubramanian and Shukla, 2017a). Deriving first a
quadrant-based categorisation of enablers of GSCMC, based on an extensive review
of the GSCMC literature (Balasubramanian 2014), Balasubramanian and Shukla
(2017a) proposed and tested a nine-construct structural model, in which they
demonstrated the relationship between internal and external drivers and barriers to
core and facilitating green practices, and the relationship between core and facilitating
green practices and environmental, economic and organisational performance.
Further, they tested these relationships for four main roles in construction
(developer/client; architect/designer; major contractor; material suppliers). This
represents an important step forward in the literature in offering a tested framework
which future research can seek to apply or extend.
SYNTHESIS
Overview
The review of 44 papers showed rapidly increasing interest in topics associated with
GSCMC, following somewhat later than a more general surge in research interest in
GSCM in other industries (Zhu & Sarkis 2006). The spread of journals in which
relevant studies have been published demonstrates wide interest and is a promising
basis for a thriving research domain. A mixture of methods has been used, including
in-depth interviews, surveys, mixed methods, case studies and modelling, which
provides a generally robust empirical base, with a few exceptions where insufficient
data were provided.
Definition
A point of note was the failure of many papers to define explicitly what they
understood by GSCMC. Da Rocha and Sattler (2009) drew on earlier definitions of
SCM as (a) the activities involved in the flow of goods or services from primary
source to end client and (b) the integration of the main processes between suppliers
and end client to add value for stakeholders. The latter usefully draws attention to a
strategic business objective of SCM – that of adding value – although the definition is
quite narrow in its limitation to integrated processes: this omits critical aspects of
SCM such as developing inter-organisational relationships. The former definition, in
contrast, uses a broad conceptualisation but the underlying model is linear which
poses problems for a sustainable economy in which circularity – the retrieval and
reuse of resources - must feature.
Across the set of papers, it is noteworthy that there is limited discussion of how
GSCMC may be understood as similar to but differentiated from SCM. A final
striking absence in terms of definition is the concept of ‘true sustainability’ – the
notion that the end goal (even if not wholly achievable) must be the absence of
adverse environmental impact, the potential for positive environmental contribution
and for indefinite continuance of the supply chain (assuming non-supply chain factors
remain favourable) (Pagell and Wu, 2009). Drawing on the papers reviewed, a
definition of GSCMC is now offered.
GSCMC comprises the management of all activities in an organisation related to
minimising the environmental impact of all of its supply chains which contribute to its
final products, with the aim of achieving zero net harm and the potential to operate
indefinitely, given an available market. The activities comprise, at a minimum, green
purchasing. GSCMC can also include green design, green manufacturing, green
transportation, waste management, green operation and end-of-life management. The
objectives of GSCMC comprise improved environmental performance, improved
business performance through greater efficiency, increased competitiveness and
increased value to stakeholders. Across all supply chain actors, GSCMC requires
management of the above activities to achieve the required objectives, that is,
planning, control, measurement, monitoring and evaluation. The activities, objectives
and management of GSCMC will vary by role of firm, as discussed below. Successful
GSCMC requires relationship management as part of greater integration of business
processes and systems along supply chains.
This is offered as an overarching definition and is therefore relatively abstract, aiming
to address the notion of GSCMC at a conceptual level. There remains a need for
complementary and partial definitions at a more concrete level, relating directly to
perspective of stakeholders.
Stakeholder perspective
Within construction, critically, the role of the firm influences its primary GSCMC
activities, with the contractor holding key responsibility for green transportation, and
architectural and engineering consultants for green design, for example. This entails
fundamentally different processes and different management challenges. By
implication, different definitions of GSCMC by stakeholder may be appropriate.
Balasubramanian and Shukla (2017a) have led the way in their analysis by
organisation type but further research specific to the role in the construction project
team is needed.
FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
Having synthesised key themes from the papers, gaps which merit further research
were identified.
Detailed research on subdomains
The complexity of supply chains in construction speaks to the need for both detailed,
subdomain specific as well as sector generic research. For example, it is not known if
the same principles or the same priorities in operational processes and procedures
apply across all types of projects – are there differences, for example, in managing the
supply chains for residential development where high numbers of units of similar
design will be constructed, and in managing the supply chains for a mixed-use
commercial development? Similarly, it is not yet known if the same approach should
be taken for different components and materials. Studies to add to knowledge are
required which consider the issues by size of focal organisation, by material (further
work on timber and aggregate, new studies on window systems, roof systems, HVAC,
for example) and by type of project (in additional to the work on residential, studies
on commercial, health, education, hospitality, and infrastructure projects).
End-to-end perspective
Further, an holistic, end-to-end perspective is also needed – a long-term view which in
practical terms should look for the greatest impacts along the supply chain in order to
achieve the greatest and/or most rapid improvement. Although it has been suggested
that the failings of any one link in the supply chain weakens the supply chain’s overall
performance (Balasubramanian & Shukla, 2017a), not all supply chain roles are equal.
Supply firms may vary dramatically with respect to their environmental impact, and
resources (time, expertise, finance) are best applied to the most damaging aspects in
the chain. This points to the value of a ‘hotspot’ analysis along a whole supply chain
(Dadhich et al., 2015) to facilitate the most effective commitment of resources and
potentially quicker beneficial impact.
Stakeholder perspective
In parallel with an end-to-end perspective, potentially owned by the client, there is a
need to investigate further what GSMC means for different roles within the supply
chain. Building on the work of Balasubramanian & Shukla (2017a), research is needed
on the similarities and differences of managing a green supply in developers, primary
and general contractors, tier 2 contractors, specialist subcontractors, trades, different
types of consultancy, and process (e.g. cement) and product-oriented (e.g. façade
systems) suppliers.
Particular challenges of construction
The ARCOM2018 theme of balancing fragmentation and integration highlights a
primary area for future research within GSCMC. Of the reviewed papers, the few
which gave thorough consideration to the nature of the construction sector pointed to
challenges to the industry. The project-based nature of construction which contrasts
with long-term alliances in manufacturing, for example, means that relationships
between commissioning firms and suppliers are often one-off and short-term, and are
often characterised as adversarial (Ofori, 2000). This works against the SCM ideal of
deepening relationships with suppliers to pursue integration of processes (Seuring and
Gold, 2013). In particular, the development of trust between firms, identified as
crucial to stronger inter-organisational relationships (Loorbach et al. 2010), takes time
to develop. Within construction, it has been noted that partnering and alliances do not
necessarily bring trust and absence of competition (Bossink, 2007). Although alluded
to, the issues of fragmentation and the challenges of integration along construction
supply chains have not yet been subject to detailed study.
Beyond these gaps, more critical perspectives have yet to be considered (e.g. Gold &
Schleper, 2017). These topics warrant research scrutiny if the potential of GSCMC to
address the socially critical concerns of environmental impact is to be realised.
REFERENCES
Ahi, P., & Searcy, C. (2013). A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green
and sustainable supply chain management. Journal of cleaner production, 52,
329-341.
Albino, V., & Berardi, U. (2012). Green buildings and organizational changes in
Italian case studies. Business strategy and the environment, 21, 387-400.
Arroyo, P., Tommelein, I. D., & Ballard, G. (2016). Selecting globally sustainable
materials: A case study. Journal of construction engineering and management,
142(2), 05015015.
Balasubramanian, S. (2014). A structural analysis of green supply chain management
enablers in the UAE construction sector. International journal of logistics
systems and management, 19(2), 131-150.
Balasubramanian, S., & Shukla, V. (2017a). Green supply chain management: an
empirical investigation on the construction sector. Supply chain management,
22(1), 58-81.
Balasubramanian, S., & Shukla, V. (2017b). Green supply chain management: the
case of the construction sector in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Production
planning and control, 28(14), 1116-1138.
Banawi, A., & Bilec, M. M. (2014). A framework to improve construction processes:
Integrating lean, green and six sigma. International Journal of Construction
Management, 14(1), 45-55.
Bossink, B. A. G. (2007). The interorganizational innovation processes of sustainable
building: A Dutch case of joint building innovation in sustainability. Building
and environment, 42(12), 4086-4092.
 Briner, R. B., & Denyer, D. (2012). Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a
practice and scholarship tool. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook
of evidence-based management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dadhich, P., Genovese, A., Kumar, N., & Acquaye, A. (2015). Developing sustainable
supply chains in the UK construction industry: A case study. International
Journal of Production Economics, 164, 271-284.
EU. (2015). Construction and demolition waste (CDW). Retrieved 16.3.2018, from
http://bit.ly/1ERulE1
European Commission (2008). Raw materials initiative - meeting our critical needs for
growth and jobs in Europe. COM(2008) 699. Brussels: European Commission
Gold, S. & Schleper M.C. (2017) A pathway towards true sustainability: a recognition
foundation of sustainable supply chain management. European Management
Journal. 35:425-429
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews.
London: Sage.
Kibert, C. J., Sendzimir, J., & Guy, B. (2000). Construction ecology and metabolism:
Natural system analogues for a sustainable built environment. Construction
management and economics, 18(8), 903-916.
Loorbach, D., van Bakel, J. C., Whiteman, G., & Rotmans, J. (2010). Business
strategies for transitions towards sustainable systems. Business strategy and
the environment, 19(2), 133-146.
Lucon, O., Urge-Vorsatz, A., Zain Ahmed, H., Akbari, P., Bertoldi, L. F. & al. (2014).
Buildings. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Cambridge: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The Prisma Group (2009).
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The
PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097.
Ofori, G. (2000). Greening the construction supply chain in Singapore. European
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 6(3), 195-206.
Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2009). Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply
chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. Journal of supply chain
management, 45(2), 37-56.
Sertyesilisik, B. (2016). Embending [sic] Sustainability Dynamics in the Lean
Construction SCM. YBL Journal of built environment, 4(1), 60-78.
Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2013). Sustainability management beyond corporate
boundaries. Journal of cleaner production, 56, 1-6.
Wong, J., Chan, J., & Wadu, M. (2016). Facilitating effective green procurement in
construction projects. Journal of cleaner production, 135, 859-871.
Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2006). An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain
management in China. Journal of cleaner production, 14(5), 472-486.

View publication stats